Blood Pressure and Antihypertensive Therapy as Predictors of Early Outcome in Acute Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical impact of blood pressure (BP) and of antihypertensive therapy (AHT) in acute ischemic stroke remains uncertain. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of patients admitted to the Montreal General Hospital between April 1, 2002 and October 15, 2005. Ischemic stroke was considered severe if the Canadian Neurological Scale at presentation was < or =7. Poor outcome at 10 days after onset was defined as a modified Rankin Scale >3. Acute change in BP was defined as the percent difference between the mean 24-hour mean arterial pressure (MAP) and the baseline MAP. AHT was considered present if administered > or =5 days during the first week after stroke onset. The association between predictors and outcome was assessed using unconditional multivariable logistic regression. Covariates used included age, stroke severity, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, premorbid hypertension and hyperlipidemia. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-four patients were included. Compared to patients with intermediate baseline BP, those with a MAP >130 mm Hg [OR = 2.47 (95% CI, 1.04-5.85)] or a MAP <90 mm Hg [OR = 2.94 (95% CI, 1.28-6.77)] were found to have an increased risk of poor outcome after covariate adjustment. A 15% increase in MAP was associated with an increased risk of poor outcome [OR = 5.34 (95% CI, 1.18-24.3)] while AHT in the first week after stroke onset was found to result in a decreased risk [OR = 0.39 (95% CI, 0.17-0.90)]. However, neither of these findings remained significant after adjustment for the described covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Both high and low MAP at presentation are associated with worse short-term outcome after ischemic stroke.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".